Plea In Delhi High Court Challenging S.14(1)(d) Of Delhi Rent Control Act Over Differentiation Between Residential And Non-Residential Premises

Section 14(1)(d) prohibits any court/controller from passing an order or decree in favour of the landlord against a tenant, for recovery of possession of any premises, if the premises were let out to be used as a residence and if neither the tenant nor his family members were residing for a period of six months immediately before the date of the filing of the application for recovery of possession.

The petitioner challenged Section 14(1)(d) of the DRC Act on the ground that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution by differentiating between residential and non-residential properties.

The petitioner also seeks to reaffirm the Supreme Court's decision in Satyawati Sharma (Dead) By Lrs vs. Union Of India & Another [2008] INSC 495, where the court held Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act was in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution insofar as it discriminates between the premises let for residential and non-residential purposes when it needed by the landlord or his family members for occupation.

In the petition, it is stated that the case arises from a dispute where the tenant has allegedly not paid rent for decades and has kept the property locked. In their respective orders, the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal were of the view that Section 14(1)(d) of the DRC Act is applicable only to residential premises and not to commercial premises. The Controlled and the Tribunal stated that Satyawati Sharma only changed the uses of premises with respect to Section 14(1) (e) and not Section 14(1)(d).

The petition states that this view taken by the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal is contrary to Satyawati Sharma. It is argued that since the distinction between premises as commercial or residential was declared unconstitutional, there is no rational basis to continue such distinction under Section 14(1)(d).

The grounds for the petition are mentioned as “In that once distinction between premises has been struck down by the Hon. Supreme Court as being unconstitutional, the same cannot be allowed to continue on the statute.”

Further, “it was never the aim of the legislature, that a tenancy should continue ad infinitum, and that a property once given on rent as a shop to a tenant, would in perpetuity be vested with the tenant, even if the tenant himself does not use it, or that if the tenant keeps the property locked and engages in strategic litigation to extort and harass the landlord's family, who once decades ago let out the property in the first place.”

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela heard the matter and issued notice to the Union of India. The Court directed the respondents to file a reply.

Case title: Devinder Kumar Choudhary V/S Union Of India & Anr. (W.P.(C)-11735/2024, CM APPL. 48825/2024)